Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Layland (US 7923668 B2). Examiner has provided an annotated version of Layland as an appendix with highlighting in the spec and wording on Fig. 17A in the previous office action.
Regarding Claims 11-13, 16-19, and 22, Layland discloses (largely in Fig. 17a):
11. An aircraft comprising:
a propulsion system including a nacelle (1000) having an inlet cowl (800), wherein the inlet cowl comprises an acoustic layer (120) coupled to an ice protection system, wherein the ice protection system comprises:
heating layer (14) including perforations (30) extending from a first surface to a second surface opposite from the first surface, wherein the perforations provide acoustic paths, wherein the heating layer is configured to provide (via attachment at 80) electrically resistive heating to nacelle, and wherein the heating layer comprises:
a dielectric layer (60/62);
a conductive heater (50) coupled to the dielectric layer; and
a first film (82, 182, “adhesive material 82 may be strips of FM-300 epoxy adhesive film”; Col 14 Line 38) disposed on and over (In Fig. 14, 82 is over 50 since it is above it, and 82 is on 50 since it touches it directly where 50 curves up next to 82; See annotated Fig. 14 below) the conductive heater.
PNG
media_image1.png
679
1170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
12. The aircraft of claim 11, wherein the perforations extend to the acoustic layer (“through entire thickness of the heater”; Col 12 Line 42).
13. The aircraft of claim 12, wherein the heating layer overlays (see Fig. 17A) at least a portion of the acoustic layer.
16. The aircraft of claim 11, wherein the dielectric layer comprises fiberglass (“glass fabric”; Col 14 Line 28).
17. The aircraft of claim 11, wherein the first film is a nickel chemical vapor deposition film (“nickel coated graphite fiber”; see other publications at the end of page 2)
18. The aircraft of claim 11, wherein the perforations extend through the dielectric layer, the conductive heater, and the one first film (See Fig. 15, and “through entire thickness of the heater”; Col 12 Line 42).
19. The aircraft of claim 11, wherein the dielectric layer, the conductive heater, and the first film are laminated together (“laminated composite construction of a heater portion”; Col 13 Line 15).
22. The aircraft of claim 11, further comprising a second film (184) disposed over the heating layer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10 and 21 are rejected using the same elements from Layland as mapped above.
Regarding Claim 20, Layland further discloses a method of forming perforations (“openings 30 may be formed by mechanical drilling”; Col 16 Line 40) and coupling (1310) the heating layer to the acoustic layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layland as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Maheshwari (US 8549832 B2). Layland teaches using carbon fibers (“carbon-based material such as graphite fibers”; Col 13 Line 44). Maheshwari teaches a similar heater for a nacelle (30) with carbon nanotubes (“nonwoven textile (NWT) or woven textile (WT) of carbon nanotubes”; Col 5 Line 9-11). At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the graphite fibers of Layland as carbon nanotubes in view of the teaching of Maheshwari. The motivation for doing so would have been greater thermal output as taught by Maheshwari in Col 5 Line 47.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5 Lines 7-22, filed 03/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) amended claims 1, 11, and 20 under 102(a)(1) to Layland have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The newly added language of on and is present in Layland. The layers 82/182, and 50 touch each other where 50 curves up in Fig. 14. Thus, Layland meets the limitation of “on”. See the annotated Figure above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the nickel deposition at the end of Page 5 are not found persuasive. Applicant did not respond to the examiner’s arguments from the last rejection which are repeated here. Layland incorporates a reference R.E. Evans, D.E. Hall and B.A. Luxon, Nickel Coated Graphite Fiber Conductive Composites, SAMPE Quarterly, vol. 17, No. 4, Jul. 1986. This is listed at the end of the references cited.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M O'HARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M O'HARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights